Category Archives: Colorado
I have it all. I have loving family, a nice house, a decent job, and no limit on potential. I don’t mean to brag, but it really is nice. I’m pleased with my place in life. I think I’m doing quite well. I want for nothing and live happily. I have it all. Oh, and I have no kids.
Wait, I don’t have kids? Then how can I claim to have it all? Lately, childfree-positive articles such as Time’s recent piece, The Childfree Life, insist that “having it all” need not include having children. The aforementioned Time article even used that idea in their subtitle. You really don’t need children to have it all. In fact, children may even stand in the way. It’s refreshing to see this message slowly gaining speed in the media.
Almost invariably, however, this positive message will be challenged. Either in the article itself or in the comments, someone will insist that no one can really have it all, and that we must choose one thing or another. That’s not a bad point. It may even actually apply to some people. For instance, someone who would have wanted kids but decided they wanted the benefits of not having children such as personal freedom, financial stability, career and education, general success, relationship satisfaction, and so on, more than they want parenthood might really be making the choice to sacrifice one thing for another. Likewise, someone who would have wanted such benefits that a life without kids can bring, but gave up on the full realization of those dreams for the sake of having children might be in a similar boat.
The fact of the matter is, even if people like children and are happy with them, they cannot have them without any negative impact on certain aspects of life. Now, it’s not impossible to be successful in one’s career while having children, but it’s less likely and the process is slowed and becomes significantly more difficult. To someone not interested in career, this wouldn’t be much of a problem. It’s not impossible to be satisfied in one’s relationship with their partner while having children, but it won’t be without the damage that comes from the strain and distraction of parental responsibilities and the consequences of failure become much more severe. Some people, however, might not be all that concerned about such a thing. It’s not impossible to be financially-stable while having children, but it requires a lot more money and whatever it takes to acquire it to remain that way, and becomes an uphill battle to become that way for those who did not start out with significant capital. Basically, what I’m saying is that life with children has a negative impact on other aspects of life, making them significantly more difficult even when not outright preventing them entirely, which it certainly can do as well.
So perhaps it could truly be said that, in such a situations as those I just described, cases in which a person might want a life unhindered but also want kids, it’s impossible to have it all. They cannot have everything they want and so must choose one or the other: the benefits of a life free of the negative effects that having children brings, or children. For such people, it’s a trade-off. They pick from two incompatible things they want the one they want more. They must decide whether or not the price they would pay is worth the product they want, no matter which perspective they look at it from (which of the two options compared is the price and which is the product.)
But this doesn’t accurately describe people who don’t want kids anyway, which I argue is what being childfree really means. Even if I didn’t have the benefits of a childfree life to weigh against having children, I still wouldn’t have children. I don’t want them. At all. There is no circumstance in which I would want them. Motherhood truly holds absolutely no appeal to me whatsoever. There is literally nothing about it that I want. It wouldn’t matter if my status in life was guaranteed to be exactly the same with the one and only difference being motherhood (which is, by the way, a wholly unrealistic scenario,) I still wouldn’t want kids. My desire to not have kids would persist completely independently of the life benefits of not having them. Forget the price, I don’t want the product.
Not having children is, in and of itself, a benefit to me in much the same way being healthy is. I’m no more sacrificing motherhood for the sake of the life I want than I am sacrificing the ability to be sick for the sake of the life I want. I don’t want children in the same way I don’t want to be sick. It’s an undesirable condition regardless of effects on other aspects of life. I really don’t need children to have it all in the same way I don’t need malaria to have it all. Being free of such a condition is precisely what I do want.
At this point, someone is surely ready to complain about comparing children to diseases. It sure does sound harsh, doesn’t it? And at this point they’re probably expecting me to soften the blow by saying that it was only an exaggerated comparison, meant to illustrate a point, and doesn’t reflect my true options. And here is where I reject expectations and just tell the truth.
To me, having children (that’s having children, the children themselves,) is like a disease, one of the life itself rather than just the body. It’s a state which I would never be happy or comfortable in. In fact, I’m sure that I would be miserable. This may not be the truth for you, but it is nonetheless the truth for me. I don’t want children in my life. At all. Under any circumstances. I don’t find children interesting or even all that likable. Nor do I find a life that included children even remotely desirable. I would find it draining to just be around children, even well-behaved children, for any extended period of time. It would bring me absolutely no pleasure and would suck the joy right out of my life to have children. I would never be satisfied with being a mother. Even if I could be guaranteed the absolute best children in the world, and somehow having them had absolutely no impact on the way I lived my life (finances, education, career, relationship, potential, etc,) I still wouldn’t want them. A life that includes children is as undesirable to me as illness. And since I’m sticking with this unpleasant-sounding comparison, I think here is where I will point out that I can’t very well insult children who never existed and never will.
To state it plainly, it’s not just the benefits of a childfree life that I want; it’s a life free of children in it as well. I’m not choosing between two incompatible desires the one I want more. My wants on both matters go hand-in-hand. I don’t want children. I do want the benefits of not having them. For me, it’s not a trade-off in any way. It’s win-win. I sacrifice absolutely nothing and receive nothing but reward for it. I really do have it all.
I’m looking over some of my old posts. It occurs to me that some will have to go. My writing style has changed. The direction of this blog has changed. And, at least to some extent, my attitudes have changed.
I don’t blog for attention or readership. I really don’t care too much about that, honestly. This has always just been a place for me to air my thoughts. Sometimes people agree, which is cool. Sometimes they don’t, which might lead to an interesting discussion. Sometimes people find what I write to be helpful, which makes me happy. Sometimes they’re offended, which often results in drama.
Sometimes I turned out to be wrong about something. Sometimes a joke didn’t come across as intended. Sometimes I lost my patience. I’m human.
But I don’t write for other people, and I don’t change for other people. I do it for myself, when and if I feel like it, and I write about whatever happens to be on my mind.
As my mind changes, so must this blog. My journal.
What I’m saying is, I think I’m going to get rid of some of my old posts.
As an atheist, I have encountered many arguments offered by believers for the existence of their version of god. These arguments are, of course, completely without merit, as you would expect from people arguing without any sort of supporting evidence. It’s difficult to say which argument is the dumbest, because there’s no reasonable way to argue for the unreasonable.
One of these especially poorly thought out arguments goes something like this:
“So what if you can’t see god? You can’t see air either, but you believe that it’s real.”
I’ve been offered this argument from Christians and Muslims. I imagine adherents to other religions would likewise offer this sort of argument; it just happens that I haven’t personally run across any such people. In the US, most theists are Christian, so they’re the ones most likely to offer me this argument. I was only offered this argument in person by a Muslim because I was in Qatar at the time, which is an Islamic nation. What I’m saying is, this argument is not nearly as clever or unique as the people who offer it seem to think it is.
In the past, I’ve countered the argument in a number of was:
1. By pointing out that the statement is a logical fallacy called a non sequitor argument. Non sequitor comes from Latin, meaning “it does not follow.” Basically, a person is saying that this one non-visible thing (air) exists, therefore so does this other non-visible thing (god.) To illustrate the flaw in this, suppose I said “You can’t see unicorns, but you can’t see air either!” No one will be convinced by that because we understand that just because one thing exists does NOT mean that some other unrelated thing exists.
2. I would again mention that adherents to other religions could well make the same argument. To a proselytizing Christian, I could recount the story of when a proselytizing Muslim gave me that very same “air” argument, only he was arguing for Allah (which is actually the same god of Abraham, just a different version.) I would then point out that, at this revelation, the Christian is not convinced to convert to Islam. Nor is he convinced to convert to Unicornism.
3. The most obvious and frequently-used way to counter the “air” argument is by pointing out that we can prove the existence of air in a number of ways. Even first graders can prove that air exists with simple experiments. More than that, we actually can see air. Then, when I’m done listing every single evidence I can think of to demonstrate the existence of air, I point out that there is no evidence for god, therefore making the two incomparable.
Having given the argument much thought though, I’ve decided that, while all of these responses are correct and are more than sufficient to keep an atheist from being convinced to convert, none of them really do much about the theist. Allow me to explain.
Responses 1 and 2 deal with logic. Religious belief is, by nature, illogical. On some level, the theist probably realizes this, at least to some degree. So they won’t hear any argument that other religions say the same thing. They’re conditioned to think that even if other religions make the same arguments, only their own religion is correct about it. As for the non-sequitor, well, that’s all the theist has to resort to using as he has no evidence, which is the point.
Response 3, proving air, is trivial. The theist already accept the existence of air and, in making this argument, is confident that you accept air as well. He can be reasonably sure of this because he is well aware of the evidence of air. Since he has no evidence for god, and he has no evidenced for god, else he would provide that, he tries to put god on the same level of reality as air by making the false comparison.
So, I’ve decided that the best course of action is to surprise the hell out of a theist. Since we realize his expectation and reasoning, he can turn it against him and maybe even demonstrate that he is not actually as confident in god himself as he is in air.
What we do is simple, we deny air. In my head, the scenario goes something like this. Your own mileage may vary.
Theist: “You can’t see air either, but you know that it’s real.”
Athiest: “Of course I believe in air. But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend for a moment that I really don’t believe in the existence of air. How might you go about convincing me?”
Assuming the theist actually plays along instead of, perhaps realizing his flaw already, and/or responding with insults, he might answer by listing off evidences for the existence for air. The theist might not mention the fact that yes, we can see air, however. When viewing air underwater, you observe bubbles. One might argue that you’re not really seeing air, but the space where water isn’t.
However, you can easily see air by looking up. Air is made of matter, it just happens that it’s not very dense. If you look through enough of it, you’ll be able to see that there is something there. Look up at the daytime sky. From Earth, the daytime sky is blue. However, when viewed from the moon, the daytime sky only shows the sun and stars against the blackness of space. Why is that? It’s because we live under an atmosphere. If you understand how vision works, you understand that when you see an object, what you’re really seeing is light bouncing off of that object and into your eye. When you see a blue sky, you are seeing the light being bounced off of and scattered by the air. You observe blue because that particular wavelength happens to be scattered the furthest.
However, there are plenty of other evidences of air which your theist would easily be able to provide. They would probably mention that we can physically feel moving air, we can even be thrown by it. We can observe other objects being affected by air currents as well. We can objectively measure the speed and direction of that air movement. We can use our understanding of air movement in a number of ways, including predicting weather patterns, moving sail boats, and powering wind turbines. We can even create our own air movement by use of fans, propellers, and impellers. Manipulating and creating air movement has allowed us to use aircraft and hovercraft.
We can also feel air in another way, by sensing its temperature. We can also observe air temperature causing objects to change physical states (objects freezing, melting, or steaming.) We can even objectively measure air temperature through the use of thermometers, and have different measurement standards for doing so. We’re able to use our knowledge of temperature to predict air pressure and movement. We can also manipulate air temperature and predict the effects of doing so, allowing us to use this ability to cook in ovens, have air-conditioned homes, preserve food, and fly hot air balloons.
We also feel air pressure. We’re so used to feeling a particular range of air pressures within our atmosphere that we might not be aware that we feel air pressure, however, if we were suddenly placed in a vacuum, the effects on the human body would be very noticeable. We can measure barometric pressure, and we use this to predict weather and to adjust the altimeters on aircraft. Additionally, we can measure and manipulate air pressure in containers. Doing so has allowed us to properly inflate vehicle tires and the skirts of hovercraft, operate air-powered machines, bring breathable air with us as we explore the depths of our oceans, and has allowed us to travel safely in space.
The fact that we can contain air is further proof that it’s a physical thing. As I said, we contain air in balloons, paper bags, bubbles, as well as tires, aircraft compartments, machines, and SCUBA tanks that I’ve already mentioned. And I already mentioned that we can manipulate the pressure in these containers, allowing for passenger comfort in aircraft, portable breathable air, efficient transportation, moving parts, air guns, air bombs, and popped balloons.
Once we have determined that air is composed of matter, we can figure out what that matter is, what gasses make up its composition, and we can measure what quantities we find different gasses. We’ve been able to determine that the air around us here is about 78% Nitrogen, and 20% Oxygen. We’ve discovered how important oxygen is in our respiration as well as in the operation of combustion engines, and we have noticed the difference in available oxygen as we move higher and lower in altitude. We’ve also been able to weigh different gasses, discovering that Hydrogen and Helium are much lighter than Oxygen and Nitrogen, a knowledge that has allowed us to make blips, zeppelins, and balloons float. Understanding the composition of air has uses in chemistry. We can, for example, create gasses through chemical reactions. We create CO2 simply by mixing vinegar and baking soda.
Yes, these are examples of what our theist friend would probably provide. You’ll notice that, the theist resorted immediately to using evidence to prove air, just as anyone would. I think that’s a reasonable thing to expect from anyone, even a theist.
You’ll notice, however, it’s not likely that a theist will respond by arguing “Well, you can’t see air, but you can’t see atoms either!” And they won’t further go on saying “You can’t see this thing X, but you can’t see thing Y either,” going down the list of non-visible things until they find something that you will accept. Such a response would be silly. When people can back their arguments up with solid evidence, they do. There is no need to rely on non sequitior arguments or word games for things that actually do exist.
As the theist’s “air” argument is used instead of providing evidence, it’s an admission on the theist’s part that they don’t really have any convincing evidence, especially not on the same level as we have for the existence of air. In doing this, the theist is, without even realizing it, admitting that even they do not believe in god as much as they believe in air. They realize that I, like they, believe in air based on science and reason, things that their belief in god lacks.
The “Walk For Life” is anything but. This demonstration/fundraiser is an anti-choice attack on women’s rights, health, and our very lives. The money raised benefits Life Network, which is an organization that attacks reproductive justice and funds FAKE CLINICS to deceive and endanger women. They’re a sick organization with a lot of blood on their hands, with the nerve to call themselves “pro-life.”
Colorado Springs will be the site of this misogynistic spectacle on June the second. It’s 2012 and people can still get away with blatant bigotry and people act like there’s nothing wrong. Not only is this event allowed and with no notable opposition, at least to my knowledge, but local businesses are openly supporting this attack on women without care.
Well, I care, and so should you. Please share this list and don’t do business with those who would oppose reproductive healthcare, STD prevention and treatment, accurate sexual education, contraception, and abortion care – all of which are necessary for healthy men, women, and children.
Also listed were:
Yesterday, my family ventured to Bear-Creek Dog Park. We’d been there a few times before, and quite enjoy it. The park is HUGE. It has an area for large dogs and small dogs, as many parks do. There are clear areas, wooded areas, and a mountain-runoff creek running through for the dogs to play in. There are free donated balls is a basket, a bin of shopping bags for owners to have no excuse not to clean up after their dogs, drinking fountains for humans and dogs, a restroom with a lockout for dogs to wait in, benches, and picnic tables.
It’s nice to bring Molly out. She certainly enjoys the change of pace. Being outside is fun for her, there’s a lot to see and smell and the socialization with humans and dogs is good for her. As for myself, I enjoy seeing Molly have a good time. It’s also nice for me to get to a park, and one with so few children (no screaming!) It’s fun to look around, identifying different dog breeds is if I was at a car show and pleased to see models that I like. I get to see and play with more dogs than I could ever take in to my own home, and that’s quite nice. The other owners have nice chit chat about our dogs, training, care, and so on. Really, a good time is had by all.
Yesterday, it was hot. Whereas other days she either avoided the creek, or tried to cross it by hopping on rocks and avoiding getting her paws wet, she spent most of her day in the water yesterday. All we had to do to keep her entertained was throw her Frisbee in the water and she would jump happily jump right in after it.
We noticed that Molly is very non-confrontational. If another dog so much as came near her toy, she’d approach slowly to see if the other dog would take it. If another dog did take it, she wouldn’t try to grab it but would simply follow the dog around and wait for the dog to drop it so she could get it back. There was one dog in particular who would take Molly’s Frisbee, and then trot away from her casually. The owner said that dog is probably not really interested in the Frisbee but just likes to be chased and has actually learned to run slower just so other dogs could keep up. As for chasing, Molly was happy to oblige.
At one point, another dog a bit larger than Molly invited her to play by wagging his tail and bowing, but also by barking and growling, which Molly evidently found intimidating. When the other dog would bark, Molly would run over to either myself or my boyfriend for safety, but wouldn’t bark or growl back. The barking dog simply found someone else to play with.
The three of us then wandered the huge park, playing fetch as we went along. By the time we had circled the park and returned to our car, Molly was already mostly dry. Happily, we use a dog tarp in the back seat of our Pathfinder, so a moist and slightly muddy dog isn’t a problem, although we really should have brought a towel (Douglas Adams would be displeased to know we forgot one that day.)
It was a fun day. We’re always smiling at that park as we just have a great time. Best of all, it’s free. It’s a great way to spend an afternoon with our dear Molly.